Appeal from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the cases of In Re: Claim of Robert P. Jehn, No. B-239277; Claim of David G. Stallsmith, No. B-239278; Claim of Charles F. Westlake, No. B-239279; Claim of Edwin Heffacker, No. B-239280; Claim of K. Wells, No. B-239281; Claim of Ronald S. Roxberry, No. B-239282; Claim of Gary R. Hoovler, No. B-239283; Claim of Michael L. Sturgin, No. B-239284; Claim of Michael L. Zimmer, No. B-239285; Claim of Dennis Martin, No. B-239286; Claim of Richard Dunlap, No. B-239287; Claim of David Graham, No. B-239288; Claim of Gary E. Doyle, No. B-239289; Claim of Ralph J. Kern, No. B-239290; Claim of Jeanne L. Martin, No. B-239291; Claim of Robert G. Kuhn, No. B-239292; Claim of Robert C. Kocher, No. B-239293; Claim of Evelyn M. Dye, No. B-239294.
William J. Madden, Cusick, Madden, Joyce & McKay, for petitioner.
Richard Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 210]
Robert Jehn and seventeen other individuals (claimants) petition for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed in part and reversed in part a referee's decision, thereby denying them benefits.
The claimants are or were employees of Sprang and Company (employer), and are or were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2179 (union). The labor-management agreement (contract) between the employer and the union expired at midnight on August 15, 1983 after eight negotiation sessions failed to result in a new contract. Accordingly, pickets appeared at the employer's entrances on Sunday, August 14, 1983, and no union members reported to work on Monday, August 15, 1983. Contract negotiations
[ 110 Pa. Commw. Page 211]
resumed on August 24, 1983. With regard to the events subsequent to August 24, 1983, the referee, whose findings were adopted by the Board, pertinently found that:
9. On September 1, 1983, the union president reported by telephone to the employer that there was a favorable vote to return to work under the old contract if the employer would permit the union members to return to work.
10. On September 6, 1983, the company offered a proposal to the union but the offer was refused by the union due to the following language: 'The level of wages and benefits as well as the other terms and conditions of employment for employee-members hired prior to August 13, 1983, shall be those which were in effect on August 13, 1983. There will be no holiday pay for Labor Day, September 5, 1983. The level of wages and benefits as well as the other terms and conditions of employment for persons hired after August 13, 1983 shall be as determined by the Company.'
11. On that same date, the union made a counter proposal which read as follows: 'It is agreed between the parties to end the work stoppage and to return to work under the terms and conditions of the labor agreement which expired on August 13, 1983. All employees who were on the payroll as of August 13, 1983 shall return to work on the date this agreement becomes effective. This agreement shall continue in effect for a period of one year ...